This is an archive of past discussions about User:SteveBaker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
FAR
Hi, SteveBaker. Please do not take this as a personal attack. But I have listed both Mini (nom) and Mini Moke (nom) at WP:FAR. I have had an issue with both for over 18 months now, especially the Mini article. Please see the respective nomination pages for my reasoning, and good luck in keeping these two important articles at FA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting anecdote (RE: drugs and computers)
Steve, I was going to post this in the science reference desk with the rest of my post in the "Shrooms" topic, but I think it wasn't really relevant for the OP. Anyway it is my own anecdote, which I thought might be quite interesting for you, considering a few similarities we have.
Firstly, I am only 19, so obviously grew up in a completely different generation to yourself. I got into computers early, aged 8. I started coding HTML about aged 12, moved on to ASP, etc. I then started coding C/C++ when I was 13. A few months after my 14th birthday, I was in contact with a certain herb for the first time in my life. As a risk-averse person who thought it would be very hard to avoid this herb, I did comprehensive research into it. This was my first venture into pharmacology although I didn't actually read any studies, I understood that basically my brain contained neurotransmitters and this herb would alter them. After much anticipation, I consumed the herb and was very underwhelmed, although you could call it an epiphany. All that crap the government had told me was false, non of those negative things occured. I retrospect on this event as a big catalyst towards becoming a sceptic and subsequently a scientist. As time went by I got interested in other substances, doing lots of research (leading me to peer reviewed journals, and realising for example that a rat being injected with doses of MDMA 10 times higher than the recreational human dose was obviously going to cause unrepresentative neurotoxicity). Anyway, there isn't much interest after this, other than that my interest in neuro/psychopharmacology became a passion, and my interest in coding significantly decreased. I did code something in the summer when I was 16, then got bored of it again. Updated that project in the summer when I was 18, then got bored of it again. Now I am studying for a BSc in Pharmacology (hoping to go on to a PhD), and I think that had I not encountered any of those substances, I might be spending my time at a computer endlessly typing in code and compiling rather than reading through journals, trying to piece together the puzzle of the brain. That is just my anecdote, I thought it would be interesting for you, as a coder. I am not suggesting anything by the way, but I just want to rebalance your bias against psychedelic drugs. Sorry if I bored you --Mark PEA (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The effects seem to be worse the longer the abuse of your brain goes on.
As for it being seemingly boring to sit at a computer and endlessly type in code and compiling it - you are missing three important steps. The process is more like: designing the system, designing the code to implement that system, (typing it in and compiling it) and debugging the system. The first and second steps are where most of the joy is. I'm a games programmer/designer. I get to create entire imaginary worlds (universes even) where what I say goes. I choose how the laws of physics work - how every being behaves - how things look - what they sound like - I set the laws - I determine 'right and wrong'. It's godlike...but on a manageable scale. Typing in the code happens while I'm designing the code - it doesn't impact my day at all. Compiling is fast - it's also not a huge deal. The other step you missed out - debugging - is also interesting, in a geeky kind of way. You wouldn't see the interest in that in the little 'toy' programs you worked on as a kid. Think about a million lines of software with a bug in it. It's like solving an insanely difficult crossword puzzle - or figuring out what's going on in a scientific experiment. You have a bug - you form a hypothesis about what might be causing it - you test your hypothesis with some kind of experiment - and if your hypothesis was right, you nail the sucker - otherwise you form a new hypothesis. So debugging also has it's joys - although it takes time to learn to think of it that way.
Sorry - but I still haven't met anyone who went through the 'drug phase' who didn't end up dumber and slower as a result. I hope you are the first exception, and perhaps you got out of it soon enough to have escaped the worst it can do. But I have my doubts...it sounds like at age 16 to 18 you couldn't keep focus long enough to do what you could easily do at age 12 to 14...right there, that's not a good sign.
I have a great-uncle who is 85 years old. He has been smoking since he was 15 and is healthy as a bull. His brother, who never smoked, died when he was 22 of leukemia. I have learned not to trust all those exaggerated surgeon general warnings.
And you know, my school friends drive after having a few beers all the time, and none of them have died in a car accident. So that MADD stuff is insane too.
My sister's boyfriend once held a gun to his head and pulled the trigger (after consuming some shrooms); but the gun had no bullets and we all had a big laugh. I think its perfectly fine to play Russian roulette.
We all should be skeptics and not simply trust controlled scientific experiments etc ... for, you know, they don't always consider the best case scenario and all, and are therefore inapplicable to me. Lesson learned. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve, is this your IP (forgot to log in?) or is it somebody else? Either way, these all look like examples of a slippery slope fallacy or hasty generalisation, in case you are trying to use them as a valid refute to my argument. I never said that "absolutely everyone who takes a psychedelic drug will be 100% fine", in the same that I will not say "anyone who drinks water will be fine". I did however say that my anecdote is a counter to your anecdote. Neither of these things are controlled experiments, and that is exactly the point I was making: don't trust anecdotes. --Mark PEA (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"it sounds like at age 16 to 18 you couldn't keep focus long enough to do what you could easily do at age 12 to 14...right there, that's not a good sign." I'm afraid you are wrong, although the way I typed my post (cut, paste, rearrange) meant that I didn't explain properly. In my OP, I accidentally removed the part about how my coding "skills" plateaued about age 15 (2 years experience basically). I then stopped, due to social commitments, school etc, and restarted coding in the summer that I was 16, when I had finished my exams. This was when my coding peaked, until of course when I was 18, when I updated the project I made when I was 16, basically making it alot better. This improved coding I attribute to normal brain developments in the early adult and obvious hormonal changes. To say that the reason I got bored of coding was because I couldn't focus hasn't a shred of evidence. I've become bored of lots of things over my life, playing computer games, making music, listening to the same song, watching certain TV programmes, etc. Boredom is a result of a lack of novelty.
To put things into further perspective, I'm not sure what "toy" programs are (Hello World?), but I actually coded hacks for online games. This was because I used to play online games aged 12-15, but got bored of it. Although I had stopped playing online games, I did make a couple more hacks, and always released them as open source (will provide links at end). This was mainly for the ego boost and sense of achievement at the end of it. Right now, I am 19 and not coding (too busy with University), but one could hypothesize that my interest in hacking games has moved onto hacking the brain. That should hopefully explain everything.
Links: I posted all my stuff at gamedeception forums. The thread to the project I made when I was 18 is here (http://forum.gamedeception.net/showthread.php?t=14375 - you need to tick a box to "accept the rules" before viewing). You can even search through all my posts to see the consistency of my story, heck even psychoanalyse me if you wish. Most would see someone who went from a complete C++ "noob" to a pretty decent coder and reverse engineer, of course the "drug theory" should say that I went from amazing prospect to attention-deficit dummy.
Of course. I'm only providing you with more anecdotal evidence to help prove/disprove your theory. As a video game coder I thought you would be interested in seeing some code which hacks into a complex video game (Quake 2 engine based). Anyway, I think we can agree to end this discussion now. If you do find some solid evidence that taking psilocin in moderation causes the psychosocial degeneration you speak of, please post it on the relevant article(s). --Mark PEA (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey my credit rating is already in the toilet since the freaking banks keep cutting my credit card limits so they are always maxed out no matter how much I pay them down...Oh...wait..."street cred rating"...OK...never mind.
Anyway - the Marina was my wife's car. Mine was a red Fiat Uno - which I actually enjoyed driving. OK - I know - the Uno doesn't help my cred rating either - but yeah - a Morris Marina is not the world's greatest car. It wouldn't die though. We'd decided to keep it and drive it as our 'backup' car until it eventually wouldn't go anymore. Eventually, what killed it was that the windscreen wiper gears lost some teeth and the wipers would 'stick' at one particular position once in a while. Sadly, it did this during it's annual roadworthyness test and we had to fix it. I got out the Haynes manual to figure out how and the instructions started off: "First remove the steering wheel...then remove the dashboard and instrument cluster..." and ended with "...and after replacing the wiper gears, reverse the disassembly process to reassemble the vehicle."....and that day, the car went to the car crusher!
Yeah - the Marina was a piece of crap - I'm unable to form any coherent sentences that start "But I did like this about the Marina...." It had absolutely no redeeming features! Still, it could be worse. I didn't buy the 'Ital'.
Very nicely put on Wikipedia Talk:Reference desk. (And for what it is worth, I am legitimately one of those Wikipedians who really does have training in reference desk work - and as a result of that training, I know better than to touch medical advice questions with a ten foot pole.) - EronTalk00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why people are SO determined to answer these kinds of questions. Nobody is determined to answer legal questions - and everyone is only too happy to pile on the sarcasm for any poor kid who dares to ask a homework question - but for some reason a small minority of people are utterly DETERMINED to change the rules for medical questions. I can't begin to imagine why. SteveBaker (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Simple, profession envy. Between the professions of teacher, lawyer, and doctor, which do you think would inspire the most e-peen-inity? arimareiji (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably the same urge that makes the questions banned in the first place. They probably imagine that leaving some of these questions unanswered does more damage than answering them. They're probably right, as far as that goes. Presumably, they want to decide case-by-case which questions should be answered and which shouldn't. They haven't thought this through properly, Obviously.
Other people honestly believe that being able to look something up is as good as knowing it.
Or perhaps people just perceive the medical restriction as nothing more than a legal dodge and don't like being held back by lawyers.
All of which might be considered to be reasonable opinions - except that the same reasons don't seem to apply to their thinking about answering legal questions. SteveBaker (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that that's true. There's a lot of questions about copyright law, and other minor issues of law that are usually answered with "This isn't legal advice, but..." or a link to some relevant law.
That's exactly what I'm saying - we DON'T have the same problems with legal questions. There aren't huge arguments on the Talk: page demanding the right to answer legal questions - or berating people who answer them in violation of our guidelines. The system just kinda works without all of the bickering. SteveBaker (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly because not so many people have the impression they have something useful to say on legal matters, but everyone has an opinion on medicine. (I would love to analyze legal matters, I do that for my friends and family all the time - of course they're all now either in jail or bankrupt :)
Also, medical questions are on much more of a spectrum, so there's lots of nit-picking room to discuss whether or not it really is asking for medical advice. Where there's room for nit-picking, someone will inevitably wish to occupy that space. Legal questions tend to be more clear-cut. Franamax (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest - I'm not sure I'd want to describe "Woman with three breasts" a legitimate scientific discussion. However, I really wasn't kidding about the legitimacy of the term as a genuine hard numerical item that the games industry uses. There are several animation toolkits that allow you to enter it as a parameter. So on that basis, I thank you for the barnstar and will carry it with great care over to the showcase on my User: page just as soon as I finish adjusting the jiggle factor on this animation...more, more, more...a little more...more...darn...it's a small step from 'bouncy' to 'alarming' :-O !
Thank you for the smile your comment gave. Just curious: Would a 1 be under conditions of zero-gravity in air, with the assumption that they don't exert significant gravitational attraction of their own? arimareiji (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No - the jiggle factor is a inherent property of the boob. How the erm...'trajectory' it follows is calculated from basic physics that takes the gravitational forces and any...erm 'restraints' into account. Air resistance and the mutual gravitational attraction are ignored for sizes below DD - but since no known videogame features women with breast sizes below about a K - this is not important. The relative phase of the bilateral jiggle (for any given in-game activity) is also relevent. :-)
Eh, Kairi from Kingdom Hearts would be one exception. But to be under a K, I think you generally have to be early- or pre-teen. And even that's no guarantee, as even nine-year-olds may succumb to the phenomenon. XP
Thank you for explaining the physics; I didn't realize that VGBs are actually living entities capable of independent movement. ^_~ arimareiji (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my "Jane" question on the reference desk! I hope your advice will help "Joe". Visit my page anytime! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Cell Phones
Hi Steve:
You always teach me something and usually also make me laugh. I watchlist the Ref Desk's Science page looking for your responses. Even when I know next to nothing about the subject you address, I always learn something in the careful, point-by-point manner in which you dissect questions and theories. I hated teaching in a point-by-point style, but it is a very good way of learning, especially in those subjects where idea builds upon idea. So, thank you, and you can be snarky (in respect of my questions) any time you like; you have earned the right. :-) // BL \\ (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I apologize unreservedly if I came across as snarky - I truly didn't intend it. (There are times when I DO intend it...but this wasn't one of them!) SteveBaker (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be difficult for those of us used to having body language to view, as well as words to read, (and yes, this is a small, very small, and gentle joke vis-a-vis Aspies and the rest of the world) to tell the difference. However, I am a permanent Steve fan, and really missed your commentary when you opted out for that barren period. A number of other editors also give academicaly excellent answers, but none seem to have your energy (and your willingness to call a spade a "fucking shovel") as well as your immediate grasp of the ridiculous. You and the lost and, from my perspective, much lamented Clio of Ref Desk/Humanities have been my late night reading for nearly two years. In that brief period when neither of you was answering questions, I would log in, skim my watchlist, and go back to real life. So, yes, you are often abrupt and, to be honest, snarky and even, possibly, patronising. Many of us who ask questions do so because we have either no educational background at all, or none in the sciences, and may not know sense from nonsense. I have no such excuse -lots of education though not at graduate levels in the sciences- and, my current question notwithstanding, normally a good dollop of common sense. I wrote what I did about your reply not to chastise, but in the hope that you might laugh, too. Again, thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Alien 3D glasses
Steve, Steve . . . the reason this post was written small was to indicate to other refdesk volunteers that it was not a serious comment and they should therefore not waste their time with a serious reply. My apologies for wasting your time. SpinningSpark09:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The effect of heat on SteveBaker's temperature
Hey Steve - you're usually really calm, cool, collected, and informative on the Desks. I'm not quite sure what happened with these comments ([5], [6]) on the 'weight of gold' question.
The original poster's question was answered (at a level suitable for an elementary or high school student) quickly and courteously by Cyclonenim, as you noted. From there on, I agree that further discussion probably wasn't going to be helpful to the OP — though we have no idea what level the OP is working at, and he might well have been interested in the further details and refinements. Either way, he shouldn't have been harmed; if he walked away at the first word he didn't understand, he'd still have the 'right' answer and working explanation.
There's no prohibition on having an interesting discussion on topics related to (or derived from) the original problem. Furthermore, your 'big steaming heap of CRAP' comment seemed way out of line. It appeared after a comment of my own, where I answered a specific question Edison asked about cyclotron design. Frankly, it really hurts to hear that sort of nasty remark from someone whom I respect.
In any event, if you want to have a discussion in the future about the conduct of editors on the Desk, try a polite note on the individual editor's talk pages or a message on the RD talk page rather than exploding on the Desk itself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried a gentle nudge - but the ridiculous anti-help continued. People forget why we're there. That was a REALLY bad way to help our OP. SteveBaker (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt — your method was a REALLY bad way to try to effect change. Your initial 'gentle nudge' was a tad rude to other posters ('babbling', 'kick them in the shins', 'tell them to shut up') and condescending toward the OP (why the automatic assumption he's confused?) — and you decided to make your own relativity joke in the same edit ([7]).
Your second comment was really, really out of line. How would you like to be told that one of your good-faith, on-point responses was a 'big steaming heap of CRAP'? Please, think about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
TOAT is right, Steve. There is often arcane theoretical answers provided to simple requests for practical information. It may or may not be over the head of the OP, but someone else may find it useful. Ultimately, there are enough plain wrong answers to be annoyed about without getting upset over pedantic, but essentially factually correct responses. But even If you have a point to make about such responses, that really isn't the way to make it. Rockpocket06:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
These replies were directly contradicting the true answer. The OP was clearly confused about simple concepts of mass, weight, density and volume in the context of an object that's expanding under heat - we know that because that's the question he asked. Someone with such a basic lack of understanding needs to be given a simple, uncluttered answer that explains clearly what the issues are. He got that in the first reply. However, what followed (in the eyes of someone with such a minimal understanding of the basics) directly contradicted that first, simple, correct reply by saying that indeed, bodies that are heated do get heavier...which is quite frankly bullshit...but the OP has no way to know that. If you don't understand what density and mass are - or that conservation of mass applies here then for 100% sure, the answers that followed would not be understood - other than that they mostly contradicted the original answer. What is the OP to take away from this? As far as I could see (reading the thread through the eyes of someone with that little knowledge) the answer is "Some people think the mass doesn't change - but most people think it gets heavier"...which is quite simply, flat out not true - and can only have served to confuse for ZERO benefit to anyone.
There is far too great a desire to pile on more irrelevent details - for what goal? Most of us who reply on WP:RD/S already know that energy and mass are equivalent - we don't need to be told. The OP not only doesn't know that but doesn't NEED to know that - particularly if it's going to cause him to believe that if he heats something up, it'll get heavier - because for any practical purpose whatever - it won't. So who were all these other replies intended for? I'm 100% certain that none of us who replied to them gained an ounce of deeper understanding - the OP for sure LOST some understanding. Beyond simple 'strutting your wicked physics skillz' - what was the point of those posts? We need to stop doing that. Answers need to be pitched at the level of the question - or just a little higher. But answering a simple day to day question with a descent into things that are not only too small to measure - but also unlikely to be true because of a dozen other bigger effects - is worse than not answering it at all.
Pretending that these replies were somehow "more correct" is bullshit too - when you get down to the N'th degree of what happens when something gets hotter - there are a bunch of other effects in there too. Why stop at just the energy going into the gold bars? Energy is lost from the thing that's heating them - so it loses mass and it's gravitation is less...maybe we should talk about that too? How about the bouyancy of the gold changing if it's heated in air? No, no, NO!! It's all bullshit. If someone asks you how far it is between London and New York - you give the reply to the nearest 10 kilometers and you're done. There is no need to give the answer to the nearest millimeter - and if you did, it would be wrong. Yet that's what these replies were doing...actually worse than that...the order of magnitude of the effect they were discussing was more like giving the distance in picometers. We are here to answer people's questions - a certain amount of APPROPRIATE discussion beyond that is OK - but this wasn't even close to being appropriate. This was a pathetic exhibition - and the people involved should be ashamed at their answers and considering how to make amends - not coming here berating me for telling them that their responses were pathetic. SteveBaker (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I urge you to go back and look at the thread with fresh eyes. The OP asked a question, Cyclonenim offered the short, basic-science answer. Someguy1221 noted that relativistic effects would actually generate a mass increase, but also noted that that change so small that it has not been directly measured.
OMCV followed up on Someguy's response with a question of his own — OMCV thought that mass-energy equivalence only reared its head in nuclear reactions and sought clarification. (It's a popular misconception.) Spinningspark responded to OMCV's question with a confirmation that the principle did apply, along with a calculation of the size of the effect.
I also started a subthread on buoyancy effects. Unlike the relativistic effects, air buoyancy is a genuine issue with sensitive balances. (My CRC Handbook has a table of buoyancy correction factors, to be applied when weighing objects of different density from one's standard calibration weights.) Learning that there can be differences between a real physical quantity and the number on the display of an instrument is – or ought to be – an important part of science education. That lesson should be right after the one where a student is taught not to blindly trust the result on his calculator display.
Jayron made a statement that all the secondary effects discussed were generally negligible (usually correct) and gave a statement about their order of magnitude (micrograms per ton, which seemed off for the buoyancy). Curious, I did the calculation for the buoyancy change, and supplied the numbers, as well as noting the effect on changing air density with temperature (per Dauto's comment).
Edison then asked his own question about particle accelerator design, and how relativistic mass changes affected that field. Pykk and I gave detailed, appropriate answers to Edison's question — which you then followed with your 'heap of crap' remark. In other words — the OP's question was answered, along with questions on closely-related topics by other editors.
Is it possible that the OP might have found some of the later discussion confusing? Yep. Does that mean that we shouldn't have answered the other questions? Nope. You should know as well as anyone that there are often follow-on discussions and questions on the Ref Desk, and that sometimes those questions are only related tangentially to the original problem posed. (Frankly, some discussions get quite a bit further afield than this one did.) We have to give the OP credit for not working in a complete vacuum. He could have asked a follow-up question of his own, if he found our responses confusing. He could have asked his science teacher or professor about the issue. He may well have gone to the articles which we linked and learned a lot more than would have otherwise. He was sufficiently independent to come to the Wikipedia Ref Desk in the first place, why should we assume that he isn't capable of seeking out other resources as necessary? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the thread drifting off tangentially - so long as the replies that are given don't contradict or confuse the correct answer - and so long as we try to maintain the conversation at the level of the OP's question. Those were both problems in this case. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it is appropriate for subsequent discussion to be at the level of subsequent questions. I'm also saying that your response to the perceived problem came across – to me, at least – as condescending and insulting, and was in the wrong forum to boot. (You want confusing and disruptive? Consider what would have happened if we had been having this discussion on the Desk itself, right in front of the OP. You attacked a bunch of other volunteers, in a forum where – if they acted responsibly – they couldn't respond to you. And you did it twice.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I just want to add that while I really don't mind being told I should be kicked in the shins (I have given some pretty stupid answers on the ref desk over the years) that sort of response can be very imtimidating to volunteers who are relatively new and are just trying to answer questions. I would much prefer you to kick me in the shins on my own talk page. SpinningSpark17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The debate was in the wrong place, but Steve, your point about the "relevant level of detail" is valid to a large extent. Your comment, "This is a low point in the annals of WP:RD/S", is particularly disappointing, but I'm afraid I have to agree. I also think that you acted out emotionally, (which is ok from time to time), but to the casual reader, it looked like you were just lashing out at everyone. As a whole, I think the biggest loser in this situation is the OP, who is probably more confused about his/her original question; and worst of all, probably will not consider the WP:RD/S a valuable resource for future questions. I'm open to suggestions on how we can better serve questions like this. If we had some kind of enabling "framework" (maybe a series of checkboxes in the question-post form?) where the OP could qualify what sort of answer or what technical level they desire, maybe we could give them exactly the answer they want. You've been on the RD for long enough - you know first-hand how vague questions get crappy and irrelevant answers. That's the root of the problem; our open forum requires lots of assumptions and it's not easy to know who we're talking to and how much they want to know. Nimur (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that we can DO anything - aside from just plead from time to time that people rein in their tendency to exhibit ALL of their knowledge on a subject and to aim the answer at the (perceived) level of the supplicant. This poor OP's question wasn't vague or hard to understand - it was completely, 100% clear. The reason behind the question was also 100% clear - a confusion about density and expansion when an object is heated - possibly a confusion about mass and weight (but I think not). When someone is already confused - the last thing you should be doing is confusing them still more - and that's precisely what we did. In terms of advice that we might perhaps add to our guidelines....maybe "Respondents should endeavor pitch their answer at the appropriate level to that of the question. Simple questions demand simple answers. If you must make an overly complicated point, consider creating a level 3 heading to separate your answer from those directly responding to the questioner."
In general, I really wish our OP's would interact more with the respondents. Probably 90% of the time when I ask for a clarification or further information from the OP, I get nothing in reply. I often wonder whether they even come back to look for their answer...which is a depressing thought! If they DID interact more, we could ask them - "Do you require more detail? Did the answers go 'over your head'? Would you like us to expand on our explanation to make it more clear?"...but they don't - so that isn't going to work.
I'd like to say thank you for such comprehensive answers at the Computing desk. Even though I don't ask the questions, I read the most of the stuff there for leaning purposes and I have learned a lot from what you've written. Thank you. -- penubag (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to start a new section, but I also truly enjoyed your explanation on friction. I'm not the OP, but I'm glad you make the science refdesk one of my favorite pages to read. I have learned all sorts of stuff from the diversity of users but always find your name buried at the bottom of a long post that I find myself agreeing with. I just thought it was about time I dropped in on your page and let you know from the shadows that your dialogs are very educational for people other than the OP. You would make a great science teacher. 71.54.173.193 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Baker: I was pleased to find your the notice at the top of your User page. How nice it would be if posters would follow such a convention. However, in seeking to adopt your suggestion to my own User page I discovered your link to a How to keep a two-way conversation readable section on the Wikipedia:Talk page page broken, with no indication where such a page and its suggestions for posting conventions went.
At the risk of touching on what may be a sore subject, just an advisory that I found the use of "Mini" on what should be the "MINI" page on MINI automobiles flat maddening (and, of course, wrong) and left a post on the Talk page there seeking to revisit the naming decision for that page.
Well, I banged my head pretty hard against that wall. The people who overrode my decision to name the page "MINI (BMW)" simply did not understand (nor could they be convinced) that the general public calls it "MINI". It annoyed the heck out of me - but there was really nothing more I could do. SteveBaker (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear you. Honestly, I found reading the discussion mind-bending: it's a bloody MINI! Why don't we just call IBM ibm? We've got the power. About the way I felt when a List page I had created (laboriously, over hours, that I was shocked did not exist - but indeed had, and had, and had) had been summarily deleted by an editor who dismissed it as a list yet had list pages linked - yes, by gracious, linked - in special colored boxes on his own User page. Just when I had managed to eek out some compromise with them - no administrator even, mind, just a, uh, conscientious editor - and got the page restored so I could suit their fancy another wannabe Zeus appeared and zapped it into the eternal ether. A short tussle with them and I was reeling. Dumbfounded. Gassed.
They will argue that IBM is an acronym for "International Business Machines" - which is OK. However, MINI is not an acronym. It seems that some people are SO anxious not to follow a corporate 'style' for writing a name that they won't let you do so even if it makes sense, is what the rest of the world does and avoids confusion with another article. There is a guideline - and that's that. I would argue that "Break All Rules" applies here. But alas, not. SteveBaker (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Acronym it is: all caps, IBM. It's not "ibm" here or anywhere. Why, then, is the MINI "Mini"?
Guidelines? Indeed, one of the guidelines is Break All Rules. Which is what is argued for when there are two similar and easily confused articles, one spelled one way, the other another. Pretty clear to us both. Want to go for a beer? Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Square illusion.png
Thanks for uploading File:Square illusion.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Yeah - I saw your question yesterday. But, no - sorry - I'm not an artist. I know a little blender and a little Maya - but 3DStudio is like a foreign language to me. Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A steaming pile of poo (do we have a Barnstar for that ?)...
Hi Steve. While I agree that the Bible is largely a work of fiction, I also think we should try to keep opinions like this (and that it's a "steaming pile of crap") off the Ref Desk, as this is likely to cause anger and fights. Should we include proof that the Bible is wrong, when asked ? Absolutely. Should we refer to it as an outgassing collection of recently extruded fecal matter ? No (for one thing, the Bible is old enough to have stopped steaming, by now). :-) StuRat (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Help finding a particular question
Hello Steve, a few weeks (maybe months but not more than 2 months) ago, a question about god and the big bang was asked by somebody. It was replied by an anonymous user and in reply to that you said, 'it was a very well written reply/answer' or something of this sort. Can you point that question to me please if you remember what I am talking about. Maybe try checking your history. I tried but couldn't find it. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you go to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science page and type "big bang" into the text box and hit the button labelled "Search Reference Desk Archives" - you get a list of questions about the big bang - sadly, they are not sorted by date and there are nearly 300 of them! So, instead - you need to use the regular Wikipedia search box and search for:
big bang prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009
...which will narrow the search to only things in the Science desk that were archived in 2009. That reduces the list to 23 articles. I tried narrowing the search to only the ones I'd replied to by adding SteveBaker into the search terms - but that only got it down to 22 articles(!) - I added the phrase "well written" to the list of search terms and got zero results. Sadly, I think you're going to have to repeat my search (above) and read all 23 articles. SteveBaker (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not even sure if it was in Reference desk/Science or in /Miscellaneous. I try in any case. If you remember anything more (any keyword like pink unicorn etc.) about the arguments given be the replier, please let me know. Thanks. - DSachan (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Steve. I got it. It was posted on March 20 in Science desk with the title 'what is the origin of the universe' and you replied back to the anonymous replier 'Wow! what an inciteful [sic] reply! I think you should have used more CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS though'. I just wanted to read those arguments once again. Thanks anyway. - DSachan (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh!!! That one. The 'anonymous replier' was actually me! My Wiki account hit the magic 30 day limit beyond which it won't remember who you are - and not noticing that I was not properly logged in, I entered the entire reply anonymously. When I realised that, I posted the subsequent comment about being 'inciteful' and using more CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EMPHASIS. That was a joking reference back to something someone else said about always being able to recognize my posts because of all of the CAPITAL LETTERS I habitually use for EMPHASIS...my intent was that this would clue people in who can't recognise my writing style without the capital letters! Also, the bit about it being inciteful was most certainly not a spelling mistake (although I intended it to look like it was) - "insightful" means "clever" - but "inciteful" (which is perhaps, technically, not a real word) was intended to mean: "liable to incite something...like a riot". I believe I did make a subsequent <small> comment to the effect that I wasn't being a sock-puppeteer just to make sure everyone understood that I wasn't being sneakily self-congratulatory or anything! So, you see - I go to all this trouble to be subtle and amusing and nobody notices! SteveBaker (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha Lol. So it had a whole story behind it. I didn't take the trouble to peel the layers of this story. But yes, the reply was really insightful inciteful. - DSachan (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
) If you had a problem with my editing, why didn't you post to my talk page?
I've been very concerned by that thread at WT:RD. I just don't know what to make of it. For one thing, there's the questions above. For another, I don't see consensus agreeing with you; I see editors trying to pacify you. You're clearly an enormous asset to this Project, have bags of experience and are not usually prone to getting irate... please do talk to me.
NB this conversation may be protracted; I'm going to severely limit my editing time for the next week or so. --Dweller (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like that you set yourself up as the judge and jury over RD threads. You have no particular special qualifications - nobody gave you the job - there is no redress procedure in the event that you make a crappy decision. The last time you ran this, I rarely agreed with any of your choices so you certainly don't award in a manner that would be likely to achieve an easy consensus if it were asked for. You admit that the process is just personal opinion - and frankly, I could give a damn about your personal opinion in these matters. The method you use for making your award appears to the general public like it's something quasi-official - which is grossly misleading. You claim to have consensus - but there has not yet even been a discussion of the options. Consensus doesn't mean "a majority" - it actually means "unanimity" - so you don't have consensus yet because you haven't even made an effort to convince me. Most of the replies to that thread did NOT say "Yes I think we need Dweller to do this" - most of them said something like "I think it's harmless" - or "I don't think it's worth making a fuss over" - but then we haven't had the discussion yet. Consensus-seeking FOLLOWS discussion - it does not proceed it.
If this became well established in its present form - how would we know that you were playing fair? Suppose you took a dislike to some particular editor or questioner and denied threads they contributed to the chance of getting the award? Suppose you decided that you wanted to promote threads that diagnosed medical conditions (plenty of people do) - then started making awards to threads that were like that. How would we be able to stop you once the precedent was set that "Dweller makes this award" ? I'm not saying you would - but we have no way to know that. Where is the control? Where is the oversight?
This sets a dangerous precedent - and precedents are hard to overturn later. If you can start doing this without any formal process then what's to say some troll or other won't start something similar - but much more noxious - "Joes: Pro-creationism thread of the week" or "Mike's: Most appropriately racist thread of the week". If you're allowed to get away with this - why can't they do it too? We would have no moral high ground to squash annoying little jerks who made up their own awards. This has to be stopped at the outset because once you are allowed to do it without prior agreement - so is everyone else.
Wikipedia does have 'awards' like this - and when they appear in public places (such as the front page "image of the day", etc) they are always arrived at by consensus. "Awards" that individuals make (such as barnstars) do NOT appear in public places - they go on discussion pages or (more often - and more appropriately) on User and User/Talk pages. What you are posting to the RD in the case of these awards is not consensus - it's off-topic and completely unnecessary - and until/unless there is some kind of formal process making this a part of "the way we work" - I will continue to delete your "thread of the week" junk whenever it appears on the RD main pages. What you do on the discussion page or (preferably) on your own private user and user/talk pages is entirely up to you - although I still disapprove and think it unnecessary.
IMHO, you should either:
Just stop doing this - it's really not an important or particularly valuable thing. ...OR...
If you feel a burning need to do it - then do it on your own Talk or User pages where your personal opinions are welcome - and even encouraged. ...OR...
If you REALLY believe the RD needs this (and I'm not convinced that it does) - then you should go to the RD discussion page, explain carefully why you think there should be RD thread-of-the-week awards and promote a discussion of how it should best be handled. We can talk about whether it should be consensus-driven, whether it should be awarded on the public side of the RD or on the discussion page, what the criteria should be and so on and so forth.
I would be very surprised indeed if the conclusion of that discussion was: "Yes, we think it's valuable and that Dweller should make the award all by himself based on random criteria that he just makes up as he goes along"...I think that conclusion would surprise you too. Yet you are operating as if that were the most likely outcome. Heck, if your justification has merit - I might even support a properly sanctioned, consensus-driven, "Featured thread of the Week".
Doing this on the public RD pages without prior agreement and appropriate guideline changes is completely unacceptable...it's simply not how Wikipedia works.
Your other work on the RD is great - and I strongly encourage you to continue to contribute in the conventional manner.
Gosh, your strength of feeling over this is quite astonishing. I'm really gobsmacked. To pick up a few things (I don't have much time right now) I don't believe I have any consensus - I was saying that I don't believe there's a consensus for removing the awards, nor is there a consensus that the awards are a bad thing. I agree with you that there's no consensus they should continue, nor in what form, hence my temporary archiving of the page. But I think you should revert yourself on deleting stuff off the pages without consensus, as that's a bad precedent and I guess you've been around long enough to remember the appalling chaos the last time people started removing off-topic/humourous stuff on a regular basis. I also note you didn't answer question 2. I'll be back when I can find the time and inclination - the negativity (and to be honest, what I perceived and perceive as downright rudeness) of what I saw at WT:RD has made me somewhat disinclined to edit at the moment, as I'm unsure I can do so without heat and I greatly dislike editing in heat. I prefer resolving conflict to stoking it. Ho hum. Anyway, thanks for the lengthy comment above... I'll be back to continue discussing anon. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steve. Just looked back in the archive and found these posts to the Ref Desk talk page from when I created the award, back in August 2007. Those, plus the approving comments I've had at my talk page, at the Awards talk page have led me to believe that there is consensus that people are happy with the Awards. Yours was the first negative comment I've received. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well - what's in the archive is two people offering photos and one talking about the 'score board' thing and expressing some of the same kinds of concerns that I have. That hardly indicates consensus. How about you try to answer some of my concerns rather than simply claiming that everyone loves your award? The process here at Wikipedia is that FIRST we debate - THEN we formally seek consensus. We do not use some kind of flakey list of vague comments as "consensus". I still see no debate. Convince me that what you're doing is both needed - and the right way to go about it. Does the RD have some kind of problem that needs to be fixed with a "Thread of the Week"? Is the process of having one person arbitrarily decide what "wins" an appropriate way to proceed? Is this in tune with the way Wikipedia does things like this? I don't think you have answers for any of those points...and I think you know that and I suspect that's why you don't want to debate it properly on the RefDesk discussion page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As the user whose question started the Thread of the Week awards, I thought I'd drop in to add some light-heartedness into this discussion. The electronics on that telescope I left in the rain are still perfectly functional, so thanks to Steve and all the others who offered advice. The mount appears to be having a mechanical problem; its gears lock up while tracking a target and refuse to budge unless I force the mount to move. At first I thought the -19-degree weather I routinely subject my telescope to might be causing the problem, but unfortunately it refused to go away in the summertime. I've no idea whether the rain caused this, but the 13-cm telescope is still pretty useful for astronomy. Too bad astrophotography is no longer as easy, though!
To get on topic, I've always considered Dweller's award as an interesting idea that makes the answerers (and the OPs) smile. Nobody's putting threads on the main page or in a "Featured Threads" list, so I don't see the fact that the awards reflect Dweller's personal opinion as a problem. Comments like "This spicy thread wins the recently rescucitated (and possibly no longer weekly) 14th Ref Desk thread of the week award. Hot stuff", the most recent award, serve the same function as "Wow, great answers!" or "Nice!"--they lighten the mood. After reading this thread and the recent storm of confrontations on the reference desk talk page, I'd say that's very useful.
OK - so let's take this off of my user/talk page and discuss it properly over on the WP:RD discussion page. I've posted a set of pretty reasonable questions that I'd like answers to from the proponents of this scheme. SteveBaker (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with that document - and I'm 100% sure that Dweller is too. There can be no consensus without discussion - and we have not had that discussion. SteveBaker (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I must confess to being a little confused then, since you are presumably familiar with Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not unanimity and Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Your previous comments suggested you thought consensus required unanimity and discussion, whereas that does not seem to match Wikipedia theory or practice. I didn't really want to get into a discussion on this; I thought you generally prefer to have an accurate understanding of rules and would appreciate a prod. 217.43.141.59 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well - I really think YOU need to read the documents you just linked to. The flow chart in WP:BOLD covers precisely what happened. Dweller was bold and made the edit (he added the award) - I reverted it because I believe it's not appropriate - now he needs to either drop it or have the discusssion. As for the "What is a consensus?" document - you need to read the second sentence of the paragraph you linked to: "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other." - I don't see that discussion happening. What I hear is "A lot of people kinda-sorta agree" - but since consensus IS NOT A VOTE - and a single dissenting voice DOES COUNT (it says that right there in that document) - then there has to be a free and fair discussion - that means people have to address my fair and serious concerns before we can call it a consensus. Without discussion - in detail - of these matters, I'm entirely within my rights to say that the matter is undecided and therefore stick with the general Wikipedia approach - which does not permit extraneous things like awards on public pages without each award being agreed upon by consensus in advance (eg as in the front page). SteveBaker (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I said: I'm not interested in having a discussion about this. I just thought that you like to know where you stand with rules, and saying things like Consensus doesn't mean "a majority" - it actually means "unanimity" and Consensus-seeking FOLLOWS discussion - it does not proceed it suggested wrong ends of various sticks. Indeed, now that you have brought up your concerns proper discussion should happen. But equally, Dweller was acting within the expected consensus-forming framework by making a change without discussion. As you now say, what happened followed the flowchart precisely. Nobody was being presumptuous or unreasonable. Consensus isn't about talking about every possibly change beforehand until everybody involved agrees completely, and it doesn't involve anybody's rights.
So, there you go. Not anything to get worked up about, just a prod to hopefully get the conversation off whether past actions were appropriate and onto what you actually want to discuss. 217.43.141.59 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty poor form to say "I'm not interested in having a discussion about this." and then still try to get the last word in. APL (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Satellite flywheel Q: "...serial motors are a dumb idea..."
Steve,
I sure wish you'd use words which are less insulting, like "impractical", rather than words like "dumb". After all, the OPs come to the Ref Desk for knowledge, not to be insulted. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Light bulbs
I made some comments at RD/S. They're farther up in the thread, so I don't know if you'll notice. In any case, I'd dearly love to debate the issue. While you are totally right that incandescent bulbs are easy picking for energy-saving, the issue is more complex than just "get rid of them altogether". Maybe that works in Texas where the AC is always on and people (other than you) are lazy. Not necessarily so in more conservation-oriented and cooler climates. I'm quite wary of movements to "ban the bulb" though I certainly agree that proper use and application is important. LED's - they're pretty damn expensive, could I use that same money for carbon offsets elsewhere? Paying Madagascar to preserve both biodiversity and forests for instance?
I'll be buying one LED light soon, whatever the expense. I use CFLs in my "on-for-hours" lamps. I won't use them in rapid-switching locations, nor in recessed pots and enclosed fixtures where they quickly fail due to heat effects. I'll be stockpiling incandescents for those more efficient uses, once the inevitable ban comes around. I'm good at math. :) Anyway, regards! Franamax (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can argue that in some situations the "waste" heat from incandescents isn't wasted...but it's not heat where you need it - it's up by the ceiling...but even so, it's not efficient because much of the heat is conducted away by the copper wiring and not released into the room.
The cost of CFL's and LED has to be amortised over their lifetimes. A CFL lasts around 10 times as long as an incandescent - so if it costs you ten times as much - you're still doing good. This business of turning them on and off rapidly shortening their life is true. If you turn one on and off every 5 minutes - it'll burn out as fast as an incandescent. However, because they (typically) use 5x less energy - you can afford to leave them on for 15 minutes (at which point their lives are not measurably shortened at all) and STILL use less energy than an incandescent that's turned off after 5 minutes. So if you are moving rapidly from room to room - don't turn them off and you'll still win. The usual estimate for the pay-back time of a CFL is one month of 'typical' domestic use.
LED's last 5x longer than CFL's and 50x longer than incandescents - so even if it costs 50x more than a lightbulb - you win on replacement cost grounds alone. Sadly, an LED light costs something like $100 - which is FAR more than most people would pay - even if you could convince them of the long-term economics...and in truth, while the electricity savings relative to a $0.50 incandescent are compelling - a $100 LED can't beat a $2.00 CFL - so they aren't truly economic yet. What is needed to make LED lights "happen" on a large scale is to require new houses to have them. Compared to the cost of a house, the cost of a couple of dozen LED lamps (even at $100 a pop) is pretty negligable. With a 50,000 hour lifetime - very few of the LED's would have burned out before the mortgage is paid off. The builder could offer "free replacement LED lights for as long as you own your home" without much risk. Once the volume sales of these things take off - the savings on manufacturing costs would get a lot better and the prices would plummet. $100 for an LED lamp with 20 LED's inside is nuts when you can buy an individual LED at Radio-Shack for $0.25 - so the prices right now are definitely "what the niche-market will stand" rather than as serious competition for CFL's.
Once CFL's take over - the other way to get LED's in would be to either force safe recycling of the mercury in CFL's or to tax the economic downside of mercury pollution. But frankly, right now - simply getting rid of the incandescents - no matter how it happens is a priority.
Anyway - take a look at Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs and you'll see that this is going to happen, no matter anyone's personal concerns. But it's gone beyond the debate stage already. In less than 5 years, you simply won't be able to buy incandescent lights anymore...except for niche-market applications...because laws have already been passed. The European market for incandescents goes away in 2012 and the US market vanishes in 2014 (well, at least for 40W or more - they'll still be allowed to sell the little 15W and 25W bulbs for a while longer).
Heck - if you were an incandescent bulb manufacturer with the sure and certain knowledge that you'd never sell another 40W/60W/100W bulb in Europe or the US within 3 to 5 years - what would you do? I'd switch my factory to making CFL's and push research dollars in to LED's as fast as I could do it...and that's what's happening.
I really wish that LED technology (or something yet more exotic like organic-LED's) would be there in time for the switch in 2012/2014 - but right now, I kinda doubt it.
Yes, I've thought about that "heat at the ceiling" problem - but in fact that's where it ends up anyway. In fact, a gradient is established, and not all lamps are on the ceiling. You're talking about some percentage during the heating season, and it's less than 100%, which gets conveniently dismissed. Running a lamp in an air-connditioned house, no question, you pay for the conversion inefficiency, then you pay again to extract the waste heat.
My experience with the bathroom light is that when you turn it on and off in cycles varying from 30 seconds to 30 minutes (there's no need to outline our exact bathroom habits here, some of which I dispute :) it has far less lifetime. Far far less. SS is right though, may have been a dud, so I'll spend the bucks to try it again. I totally don't get the advice though - are you saying I should deliberately leave on a lamp that I know I don't need, and leave it consuming energy for 15 minutes, because that extra energy consumption saves energy? I'll have to find my enverlope-back where I worked that out. Maybe the answer is to put in a timer to maintain the light to the optimum bulb-life duration, then switch off. I recall that system being used in Europe, you either had to get in the apartment promptly, or use your key in the dark...
I'm all for use of LEDs and I'm well-aware of the creeping phaseout of incandescents. It's curious to see a Texan advocating such rampantly socialistic approaches as forcing people to do, well, anything except carry guns. :) I believe you're not native to the state though.
My big problem with all this is not the obvious energy-saving and carbon opportunities. It's with the blanket approach, which to me ignores economic and environmental logic. In some situations, incandescent lighting is the better approach. We should be free to adopt the best approach.
My solution is to tax the living shit out of uses that produce carbon emissions (polluter pays) and reduce all other taxes. We'll find a stable equilibrium that way. It is certainly not to advocate universal laws based on the climate conditions you find yourself in (the royal you, as in y'all).
If I was an incandescent bulb maker, I'd be setting myself up for a thriving blackmarket. We'll still be able to "export" our product, right? Well, I have a customer 12 feet across the border. After all, it worked so well for tobacco and alcohol in the past, what could go wrong? And there's hardly any profits to be msde by smuggling. :)
Side note: turns out biofuels aren't just net-zero on warming, they may be much worse. N2O is 100 times worse than CO2, and corn is an especially "leaky" plant in nitrogen-fertilized soil. [8] Ethanol subsidies turned out well for farmers in the US Midwest though, and I'm sure it's good for the politicians for whom they vote. World food prices hardly even skyrocketed too! We'll cure this global warming problem yet, and what's more, we'll collect statistics on which blanket treatments kill the patient and which save it. We'll get it right two or three planets from now. :( Franamax (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll send the Economist article under spearate cover.
It's OK - I read it already.
Well, I'm not a Texan - I'm British - I merely live in Texas. Certainly, Texans (and many other Americans) are very against having laws forcing them to do things. In this case, I agree with the need to pass a law because that allows the manufacturers to plan for the change over without having to second-guess consumer opinion or the actions of other manufacturers. Market forces don't always result in the best decisions - if they did, we'd all have CFL's already.
Anyway - the bathroom problem is certainly a difficulty for CFL's - but even if you do use a CFL there and turn it on and off after 30 seconds - it still saves electricity. What you're arguing for is the continued manufacture of incandescents because in one place in the house - and only in parts of the world where heating is required for more of the year than cooling - you'd only break even instead of winning. That's a pretty weak argument. You have to look REALLY hard to find a situation where an incandescent will beat a CFL either ecologically or economically. The benefits to be had from getting rid of incandescents for the 99% of cases where they CFL's are a clear win by far outweighs the tiny losses in those niche applications. If you allow incandescents to continue to be sold, the vast majority of unthinking bozo's out there will look at the row of lightbulbs, see that incandescents cost $0.50, CFL's cost $2.00 and LED's cost $100.00 and they'll carry on buying the incandescents because they are too stupid or too lazy to see what the longer term cost/benefits are and make the correct decision.
None of us are immune to this problem. I recall my boss in my first job out of college back in the late 1970's had figured out that buying a Rolls Royce was more cost-effective than a cheap family saloon (because it's more reliable - it would last longer - and would not depreciate significantly) - and laid out all of the arguments in a bullet-proof manner. He had the courage of his convictions and tried to pursuade his bank to lend him the money to buy a Rolls Royce. Needless to say, the bank didn't agree...but he was actually 100% correct. Sadly, even I find it hard to make a decision like that - a 30 year payback time is just too long in most cases. But some people can't even figure out that the CFL pays for itself in a month - and for those people, we need laws to protect them from themselves (and also to protect the environment from them!).
People who don't take the time to think things through are responsible for a lot of similar ills. Why does inkjet printer ink cost so much? Because people look at a $100 printer and a $200 printer and but the cheap one without noticing that the cost of the ink is $30 more - so after only 4 refills, the $200 printer would have been cheaper. Because there are so many bozo's around, we have cheap printers but INSANELY expensive ink. Similar arguments apply to Hybrid cars, VideoGame consoles, properly insulated houses...you name it. The unthinking actions of the majority of consumers damns us all to ridiculous situations like that. Hence, we need laws...sadly.
Smuggling lightbulbs is not a good business. You'd need enormous volume to make a profit buying black-marked $0.50 incandescents and selling them in competition to WalMart's $2.00 CFL's. Nobody who wants a lightbulb is going to risk breaking the law to save $1.50...and WalMart is so convenient. The smuggler can't GET enormous volume doing that - so it's not going to happen (and even if it did - it wouldn't matter because the percentage of people doing that would be tiny - and in any case the factories that make the darned things are not going to stay in business by selling to smugglers!)
I agree that carbon taxing is going to be needed - but I doubt governments will have the will to push people's electricity prices to the level where they'll be compelled to change all of their lightbulbs...after all, they could already be saving money by using them - and they aren't (at least not on a large-enough scale)
I've never been a big fan of Ethanol - and I'm very much opposed to the corn-based stuff. There are much better plants to choose for making it...and most of those don't suffer from this N2O problem because they grow well without fertilizer (that report is pretty contoversial BTW - it's definitely not "accepted science" yet). Also, if N2O is being produced in dangerous quantities, it must be in the Ethanol production plant - where can be broken down into less noxious gasses fairly easily - that's what happens in the catalytic convertor in your car. So there is a strong possibility that we could capture the stuff and turn it into something less nasty before it gets into the atmosphere.
You noted above that I didn't debate the issue properly at the Ref Desk talk page. You are correct.
Your guess at the reason was, however, incorrect. It is as follows.
The "discussion" was opened with a slew of incivility and inappropriate anger. I was not informed of the discussion for more than a day and a half. This is not the way to begin a debate. You made the temperature so hot, I did not trust myself to discuss it without heat. In fact, I didn't trust myself to edit at all, and largely discontinued editing for a time.
If you had approached me at my talk page, or opened a civil discussion and notified me of it, we could have debated. As it is, you bulldozed the conversation in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for me to do anything but stoke a conflict, and that I decline to do, especially over something that was supposed to champion positivity and be fun.
So, I've discontinued the award. I think it's a shame. But I think it's more of a shame that it's happened the way it did. --Dweller (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, you got your way; the award is no more. If you feel you are playing the villain here it is because of the manner in which you initiated this "conversation" [9][10], not the result. Would you please lay off the insults and long, bolded arguments? Thanks. – 7416:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
On the RD talk pageyou wrote: "Compared to about 100 carefully thought out answers I provide each week...". This is a worrisome comment. It's fine to answer questions to help the original poster, or to please yourself, but if you think of it as a contest, or expect anyone else to care how many answers you've provided, or to give you more or less credence on that basis than someone who hasn't made so many, it makes you look (I'm sorry to say) like you're way too full of yourself. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
That previous post was sheer propaganda - the praise it set up for a TINY amount of effort was ridiculous - and that needed to be pointed out. I was not trying to push my own ego but to point out that choosing a thread and making one teeny-tiny post to "award" it once a week does not in any way constitute "considerable effort". By comparison with the amount of work that all of the RD regulars put in to create that flow of content, the effort to make this award is quite utterly trivial. I suggest you complain to the original poster of that thread. SteveBaker (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But my complaint is not with the original poster of that thread; my complaint is with you. You have lost all perspective here, and I thought it might be useful to point that out to you. But for some reason you've become utterly bullheaded on this point. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When Dweller started up with this thing again - I explained why I thought it was wrong. Clearly I was in the minority - but being in the minority doesn't mean I was wrong - I think a lot of people hadn't thought it through clearly. Wikipedia doesn't operate as a democracy - it demands that there is debate where there is dissent. We are not allowed to trample a minority view without debate. Proper, reasoned debate. Just saying "I kinda like the award" is not debate. Saying "shut up, this is annoying" or "I like it and I'm not going to discuss it" isn't debate. Saying "I refuse to debate this" certainly isn't debate. This is beyond the matter of whether this goddamn award should be there or not - it's about the fundamentals of the way Wikipedia does business - and I'm frankly horrified that so many people don't understand that.
The correct procedure for something like this is that the objector puts forward a list of concerns - which I did - we talk about those concerns - point by point - addressing each one in turn. Either those concerns turn out to be unwarranted - or they turn out to be reasonable - or we may be unable to agree which of those things they are. But at least, at the end, both sides can understand the other side's position. When we've reached that point of mutual understanding - if not agreement - then and only then - we look to see what the consensus numbers look like and if there is a tiny minority view remaining after both sides have fully explored the other side's position - then you can ignore the minority. But before you do that you have to go through the list of concerns and address them properly - even if only a tiny minority requires it - because sometimes, the minority has thought of something that the majority have not and ends up convincing everyone.
Still, to this very moment, I don't understand the position of those wanting this award to stay on the public-side pages of the RD. Not one person - not a single one will tell me why this award belongs on the RD itself rather than on a talk page someplace...why this award is different from every single other award that Wikipedia allows.
That's a very simple question. Nobody (NOBODY!!) will answer it. Why not? If they believe I'm wrong, there must be a reason why they believe that - and they should say why so that I can understand their position - maybe they have some good reasons - heck, if I understood their reasons then maybe I'd be forced to change my mind and agree with them...that would be a fine thing because then we'd have proper consensus. On the other hand, if they believe I'm right - then I've made my point and they should concede it so that we can make appropriate decisions as a result of that.
This has not been a debate - it's the majority attempting to rule by telling someone to STFU...and that's categorically NOT how Wikipedia operates. I care about Wikipedia - it's one of very few shining examples of how our species can occasionally do something right. Hence, I care greatly about how Wikipedia operates - and that makes this is a serious matter. It ceases to be about the pro's and con's of the stoopid award and becomes a case of mob-rule. If you think I'm going to stand for that - then you don't know me very well.
It was good that Dweller decided not to continue with the award (although I think the reasons he gives are dubious). I had hoped we could have left it at that - but then we get another L-O-N-G thread where people beg and plead for him to carry on doing the bloody thing - and some kind of ridiculous "tribute" to the award with this crazy, overblown bullshit claim that it took "considerable effort" to do it.
I'd be more than happy to drop this - providing everyone else drops it too. But if the "mob rulers" are going to carry on promoting the idea - and pushing to have it come back - then I can't drop it either because I refuse to allow things to descend to that level.
Steve, you're still not getting it. I did not come here to get into a long point-by-point over Dweller's award with you. There's been more than enough of that already.
You teased Gandalf for taking the time to write four sentences while utterly avoiding addressing your point. Yet here you've written thirty without addressing mine.
You have acted in a very overbearing and bullying manner in this matter. You seem incapable of recognizing, let alone admitting it. If you weren't a respected contributor, someone might well have taken you to ANI or RFC by now. I myself, in a desperate attempt to shake you up and get you to realize the striking aberrance of your behavior, am sorely tempted to say something inappropriate like, "You're acting like someone who's off his meds."
If you want some calm rebuttals to your points, Dweller made those here.
A few requests and suggestions, while I'm at it:
Please drop the affected claim that you'd be "more than happy" to have the award retained if only it were off on a talk page somewhere. You loathe the award with a monomaniacal passion and would love to see it dead and buried -- which is precisely what has happened.
Please step down from the bench. Your repeated high-handed assertions that this post was "sheer propaganda" and that the awards themselves were "quite utterly trivial" are misguided and quite offensive. Who TF are you to judge?
If I were you, I would drop your pious insistence that you be debated on your own terms here. It's quite false that a "lone rogue voice" simply cannot be ignored, that every single point must be argued at arbitrary length. We ignore lone rogue voices all the time -- we call them cranks and trolls. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From/to SteveSummit to/from SteveBaker.Sorry to poke my nose in, but how about both you Steves drop your guns and surrender. The award has long been discontinued. I am not here to review SS's (Jeez... so many 's'es) claim that SB has been acting like a bully in his replies nor am I here to support or oppose SB's arguments over anything, but it seems both the parties are not willing to put the matters down. I think this fire needs a little bit of extinguisher in the form of wikilove (Oh, I am not sure if this image was a result of collaborative efforts and agreements after a sound discussion by wikipedians, so don't start shooting me Steve). Let us take Wikipedia one step further by putting this unnecessary (at this point, it certainly is) debate to an end and concentrating again on the RD questions. - DSachan (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If I can also poke my nose in, to perhaps quell Steve (Baker)'s desire for some reason why the majority didn't have any problem with Dweller's award: it was a case of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It might not have been within the letter of WP-law, but it was benign, inoffensive, friendly and positive, and helped to make the RDs a happier place - for most users. I get that they recognized it implicitly as that, and believed it was self-evident. But I haven't checked with anyone; this is just my personal assessment. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jack. Being a long time reader of the RD (not answerer though) myself, the now defunct award was a net benefit to the desks. However, it was a very insigificant issue and didn't require a long debate with point by point discussion on the cost/benefits of this award as you requested. Replying to questions is most of times a team effort and sometimes recognizing this teamwork with an award brings a good feeling to the volunteers. Now, you might ask why is it Dweller that has to choose this. Because it's a very informal award, and it's much better that way than a long and formal process. Was it someone else, there might a lot of objection. Dweller was, from my opinion (just an opinion though), the best qualified person to do such a job, which he volunteered to do, and which, whether you agree or not, does require considerable effort to read all the desks (Being myself a reader, I know it does take time and effort). He is a well-respected wikipedian and a long-time refdesker. I also don't think it was polite on your part to qualify it as a 'junk' and to make comment like 'Nobody survives as a useful admin for any amount of time if they can't stand some vigorous debat' which was meant to him directly. I believes he's very useful admin and crat, and he can debate this stuff if he wanted to, but the award is insignificant compared to the RD and wikipedia as a whole, which is why it didn't warrant a long debate as you requested. Anyway, your contributions on the desks are very much appreciated by, Ì'm sure, a lot of us here. --199.198.223.106 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, since you've referenced my "considerable effort" comment several times now, I thought it appropriate (even though I've called it quits about this) to explain. By your own admission you "prowl" less than half of the desks (as do I). Dweller on the other hand, reviews all of the desks (considerable effort?) and then makes his decision and that takes more than "about 30 seconds". I was referring to the "considerable effort" to read through all of the good/bad/interesting/not-so-much and then to make a considered decision. -hydnjo (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Through all of this, I've seen several editors such as yourself hydnjo, making a good-faith effort to explain. Make no mistake (IMO) that SB was among those editors, although doing it in a somewhat ham-fisted way. I'm less comforted by what I've seen as attempts by some editors to mount attacks on SB's approach, rather than his ideas. Looking beyond Steve's words to actual logic, I kinda think he's right-on, and a lot of the hostility was based on not having good logical answers beyond ILIKEIT (which is fine, but won't carry the day when a few people object).
Beyond all that though, shouldn't we just drop the subject? It's not too likely anyone will come to a greater understanding at this point. "Can't we all just get along?" :) Franamax (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I just need to ask you one last thing, then I got all the informations I need, then I', totally done asking you OPs, I promise, just one last time. The problem is the earth science teacher at my school said Uranus and Jupiter's sky would be dark, but I doubt Uranus and Neptune's sky is black. Since you first said gas giant's sky won't be black between clouds, it will have some colors but would it be dark? Since the teacher said Uranus sky would be black all the way, because it have almost no sunlight. But dick color have nothing to do with sky colors I thought. I get everyting I need to know about planet's color. Sky color is the only information I'm missing.--69.229.38.152 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, when you're talking about gas giants - it's gotta depend on how deep in the atmosphere you are. When you're close to the outer limits of the atmosphere - you'd mostly be looking out at deep space and it would be black with the usual number of stars - and a rather small sun. As you get deeper into the atmosphere, it would start to scatter light from the sun and it would start to look like a colored sky such as we have down here on earth - although dimmer because the sun is so far away. As you get deeper still, the suns rays would be pretty much all absorbed by the atmosphere, so it would get darker and darker the deeper you go. Uranus and Neptune are both so far from the sun that even at the optimum depth into the atmosphere, it would be pretty dark - so I guess I agree with your teacher on that one. SteveBaker (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Answering questions
Do you go off and research the answers to every question someone asks on the Ref Desk, or are you really just an all-round genius? Is there some kind of technique you use to find the info? I aspire to be like you, some day... Vimescarrot (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a mixture. Sometimes I just know the answer. Sometimes it's a matter of common sense or math or can be deduced from basic science. Other times I do actually have to hit the search boxes. Obviously, things that need a LOT of research typically don't get answered - unless it's a subject I happen to be interested in learning about. The more you do this job - the more you learn. There really aren't THAT many different subjects people ask about - so often, what I learn from other people's answers to previous questions gets regurgitated as an answer to new questions. It's very variable and depends a lot on how I'm feeling, what time I have, whether I like the question...who knows? SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Browsing your talk page, I noticed a lot of discussion about that "thread of the week" thing. You're an awful lot more literarily articulate than I am. I seem to feel exactly the same way as you did, but wouldn't have been able to explain myself much more than "It's just bullshit, wtf?" Anyway, keep up the good work. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to ask you again but I found some errors on some response
So you can really only see in black and white and the fairly dim dot that is Venus is overloading the few 'pixels' in your retina because it's soaked in rhodopsin and the iris is wide open. This means that the light-sensitive cells that Venus impacts simply report "Ouch! Too bright!" and not much else. and On the bright side - well, mercury is 3x closer to the sun than use - so it would be 9x brighter than the sunniest day on earth...well - more even than that because there is no atmosphere to scatter and attenuate the light...so it would be far too bright to see anything at all with the naked eye - so you'd have dark glasses on and now all bets are off because it depends on the nature of the glasses. I'm not sure if you are right on these. Yes, I agree asking if Venus is yellow or white is nonsense question because the way our cone cells behaves, but I wonder how you got the overloading brightness on Venus from because Venus gets light from sun just like Earth, and Venus don't make it's own light. Venus is 67 million miles, Earth is 93 million miles from sun. Divide Venus and Earth: Venus is 0.72 AU, then take 0.72 and x2 it, Venus is only twice the amount of sunlight then that of Earth. Mercury is 36 million miles away from sun. That's 0.39 AU, that's 2.5 times closer to sun than Earth not 3, then 2.5 x2 it that's 6 times brighter than sunlight on Earth. Mercury is airless, you siad it's not enough to attenuate the light. I went on Wikitionary attenuate means to lessen. i thought Mercury lacks the atmosphere to obtain lights. Science desk told me to ask on your page. They don't know if I have a question. It's only few mistakes, I thought you might have misinform, but everythng else than that i'm okay on it.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please go away - ask your questions only on the RD. It's unfair to keep hounding me with these ridiculous questions. You have my answer. That's it. SteveBaker (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Medical questions
Steve, please read my answer again. Quoting your own reply: "If you scroll to the top of this page, it says: The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice." (my emphasis). --NorwegianBluetalk16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a very common reaction - I understand completely how you feel - however, I'm only telling you what Wikipedia's rules are - I don't have the power (or the desire) to change them. The rules are laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Any and all debate about the validity of those rules belongs firmly on the 'discussion' page for those articles. Please don't argue with me about it - please don't start jumping into pages about asteroids or whatever - they can't help you either, and you are just upsetting hard-working Wikipedians who are following the notability guidelines for their subject of interest. That's all I can say on the subject - please - your complaint is a very common one - the answers don't change. I don't want to argue about it. SteveBaker (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you know we have articles that could be improved?
Hey Steve, I think I started editing at the RefDesks in the interregnum of your editing here, I didn't notice you then but I have noticed you for a year or so - so I'm not aware of any previous history you have on this site.
My question anyway is, why the heck aren't you editing articles, or at least article talk pages? You're evidently and eminently knowledgeable, and at times you can spew out sources at the drop of a hat.
Where were you at the Moon talk page, when we were trying to figure out whether it's a double-planet and whether the article should be titled "Moon", "Moon (earth)" or "The Moon"? Don't get me started on the other science topics where you could have had something valuable to add to the discussion. (I avoid computing and refinery/fractionation/distillation topics altogether, since they're my field - but you could help there too!)
So unless there's a huge reason, please watchlist a few pages. Adopt some of my tactics - if you're not particularly concerned, make a comment on the talk page, avoid mentioning other editors, and most important - walk away after you've made your input. Don't respond to any attacks or rebuttals or whatever, just comment and walk away. Believe me when I say that your input will be of constructive use to building our articles, if your comments are directed toward the science. And you can dig out great sources, how could that go wrong? Regards. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have edited a hell of a lot of articles - I've started around 40 articles over the years. I got two articles all the way from stub to front-page featured article status (Mini and Mini Moke) and half a dozen to GA status. I have at least 5,000 edits in article space). I worked for a long time in Computer and Automobile and in the articles that flow beneath them. I've also done considerable rework of a constellation of articles centering around video game development. I spent the best part of a year fighting really frustrating battles to get pseudo-science articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines in the teeth of the free-energy nut-jobs. But all of that requires a lot more effort than answering RefDesk questions - and quite honestly, the WikiPolitics of writing large-scale articles really pisses me off. I had a third major article (MINI (BMW)) ready to push to FA - but the amount of bullshit involved just wore me down to the point where I can't get up the enthusiasm! You get an article all the way through the red tape and bullshit to get it to FA status - and then a year later, the goalposts have moved and they want to delist you again. An article can be vandalised to hell and back by random IP editors every 20 minutes, 24/7 and you can't get the admins to protect it without a major inquest...and when you've done that, they go and de-list it again 6 months later and you've got to go through all that grief all over again!
I've been active in the WP:AFC team and on the Adopt-a-user crew. I've been offered adminship on a couple of occasions - and I turn it down...that's the last thing I need!
It's all more than I can stand frankly. I figure that two FA's per person is a good contribution (we have 100,000 regular editors and 2,500 FA's...someone isn't pulling their weight)! I've done more than my share of the heavy lifting on Wikipedia - so I've taken to being something of a WikiGnome - fixing up little issues here and there and avoiding long-term commitments to any particular article. That way I keep my sanity!
The Openwhatever world goes WAY beyond our little OpenEncyclopedia effort on this web site...Wikipedia is just one small branch of this world-wide community. So please bear in mind that I'm also active in the OpenSource software movement - there are almost a dozen Linux packages (freeglut, PLIB and Tuxkart all have articles here!) that I run and maintain - and I also contribute software and advice to the Linux kernel team. Also the OpenHardware communities like RepRap, Arduino and the home-built CNC machine tool group that's loosely centered around Make (magazine) are all big draws on my time.
I also run two other Wiki's all of my own - one for the Mini Owners of Texas car club (which I run and do all of the IT work for) - and one for the various branches of my extended family. I do IT work for my sister's company. I'm restoring a classic car...and oh, and by the way, I have a full-time job as a Video game programmer. It's not like I have a lot of time on my hands or a shortage of places to use my abilities! SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope I didn't come across as criticizing, 'cause I was not trying to do that at all. I was just trying to express some of my awe at the way you structure and develop your RefDesk replies, thinking about for instance the week it took me to figure out how to restructure a single article section (splitting out this from this, and Polargeo did all the heavy lifting anyway), and how you could probably do it in 15 minutes.
I tend to agree on FA's, and when you mention people not pulling their weight there, well, my arm is up and waving madly. :) I average about 20 windows per sentence, the power draw from my CPU slows down the streetcars on West 4th. And the actual FA process gets a little more about people than product sometimes, so I stick to one sentence at a time.
Anyway, it wasn't a criticism, I was just wondering. I've seen some talk page debates come up where your method of analysis would be a big help, since you cut through to the basic issues and chew them up one by one. It's good to see you're keeping busy though, and if you're still in Texas, keep in mind that someone still needs to finish the Superconducting Super Collider! :) Franamax (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No - it's OK - I know you weren't criticizing - I just wanted to point out that there is a bigger picture out there.
There is life outside of Wikipedia - and if you are passionate about the sorts of goals that Wikipedia has, you can find plenty of other volunteer efforts where you can make an actual difference to the way the world is heading. Linux was an interesting project because it allowed the Internet to be 'free' and not belong to Microsoft. Wikipedia builds on that (who needs Encarta?) - with a free Internet - we can have massive, free, high-content, zero advertising websites like this one.
I believe that Wikipedia is essentially "finished". Sure, lots of articles need work - but there is almost no significant fact that humans care about that isn't somewhere in the 2.8 million pages. There will always be important new work to do - but the encyclopedia is here - it's useful - it's by far the largest accumulation of human knowledge there has ever been. So now, Wikipedia has turned from a vital project to a hobby for me. I want attack some other areas that matter.
My interest in the Arduino and RepRap projects is a good example of that. RepRap is a little robotic machine that's about the size of a Microwave oven that can completely automatically make almost any plastic part up to about 9" x 9" x 9" by 'printing' layers of molten plastic. It can also lay down thin strips of metal to embed wiring and small metal parts. The designs it works from can be downloaded from the Internet in Open file formats - and you can design new objects for it to make using OpenSourced tools like blender. Most interestingly, RepRap is designed to be able to (ultimately) make almost all of it's own parts from cheap, recycled materials. That makes the cost of building these machines be about the same as a TV or a Microwave oven - aside from some threaded rods, nuts and bolts and some motors, you can build one with no commercial input. People are even working on ways to have it make motors - and finding ways to have it snap together without nuts and bolts.
The plan is that a few people make them by hand - then make parts to give away to someone else - who builds him/herself another RepRap - makes more parts and gives those away. The machines multiply at geometric rates until everyone who wants one can have one.
The possibility here is that you'd have something close to the mythical Santa Claus machine. So suppose you need a new toy for your kid - you pick one you like from the OpenSource database (WikiCommons maybe?) and you find an old toy that the kid has grown out of - you pull out the snap-in motors, computer board and whatever - then you use your home recycling machine (which you built with your RepRap) to chew up the plastic and to feed the granules that result into your RepRap - which makes a new toy overnight. You snap in motors and computer board and download the OpenSourced software into it - and voila! A new toy. Since everything is OpenSourced, you can improve the toy - change the software, upload your new design.
But in a 3rd world setting, a solar powered RepRap can make things like cups and plates - educational toys for kids - perhaps tools, replacement parts for tractors and jeeps...and it does this using the plastic from soda bottles that would otherwise end up in landfill. There are RepRap projects looking into making plastics from materials like corn and milk.
The computer parts you need already exist as OpenHardware - the Arduino project, for example - has a computer design that anyone can make (and a dozen manufacturers make them and compete on price and features). The RepRap could perhaps make the circuit board using a plastic board with thin metal tracks extruded where needed. The computer chip costs $4.90 in one-off quantities and only needs one external component - a 20cent resistor - and can be powered from rechargeable AA batteries and hooked up to your PC with a USB cable.
There is another project (which I'm not involved with) that is working on using inkjet printer parts to print flexible circuits - including transistors, resistors and capacitors. Think what that does for low-density electronics!
I've already built a CNC milling machine which can cut almost any 3D shape from wood. My machine cost $250 to build - and can make it's own wooden parts (the first thing I built with it was a set of spare parts for itself).
If these kinds of machine become ubiquitous, people will improve them - and just as Wikipedia grew to 2.8 million articles in less than 10 years - so RepRap will become a fully automated small-scale manufacturing plant that you'll be able to have for $100 and some 'sweat equity' in your own home. A village in Africa can have one too. This unleashes the prospect of an Internet that's has web sites with 2.8 million designs for handy 3D objects, which are somewhat intelligent and infinitely recyclable. We won't need WalMart any more than we now need Britannica or Microsoft.
So - that's where my efforts are heading...and I think it's more important than arguing what the Moon article should be called.
I don't want to touch your work, so I thought I would recommend an almost trivial improvement: You might add in the words "part of the" before the word "satellite" in your Hubble Propulsion response.Julzes (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's "trivial" why bring it up? I'm sure that that within Steve's exemplary discourses on so many subjects and on so many levels that a nitpicking opportunity always is present. Steve's responses are from his own knowledge base and often supported with some research. His responses are well thought out but certainly not infallible so, if you happen to "catch" some triviality just add your comment there where it's more likely to support your additional insight - not here where the OP is far less likely to benefit. hydnjo (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually - I was trying to recall what the heck that thread was all about...it was more than a few days ago and these things kinda blur together after a while! Anyway - if you have a problem with my answers - just make your correction right there in that thread...there's no problem. SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
But do what hydnjo says: add your comment - or to be even clearer - add your own signed comment. Don't ever "improve" anyones post, making it look like they signed the post that you improved. The only exception I can think of is when somebody starts a post with a space, or does some other grave formatting error. And even then, add a comment below the OP stating that you have taken the liberty of modifying their post. NorwegianBluetalk19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - sorry - that's what I meant. Never edit anyone else's post for any reason other than major formatting screwups. SteveBaker (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to muddy up this with triviality. Good responses. Did what was being said anyway (even though I'm just seeing now).Julzes (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/273/wampchamsjv2.png){kind=link}
![[2]](http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8451/generalcl7.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7218/greyradarbh2.png){kind=link}
